I'm anti-helmet laws on principle, but I think you're a moron if you ride without one. If they must have laws, I suggest one that says you can ride without a helmet, but then your insurance doesn't have to pay any claims if you get in a wreck.
I'd buy that. Same thing with seat belts. If you accept the risk of riding or driving without using safety equipment, then there really should be a risk to accept, y'know?
I watched a helmetless guy crack a bike up in South Carolina a couple years back. I thought for sure I was going to have to explain being late back from lunch because somebody died...fortunately the rider did a miraculous job keeping the bike up. He took a 35 mph curve at 55+ and shot off the road onto a wide dirt/grass shoulder, but managed to hang on for 100 very wobbly feet until it finally threw him going about 20 mph. He didn't have a scratch.
My brother busted himself up on his bikes in his misspent youth one too many times for me to ever think riding helmetless was smart...but it should be the individual's decision. The individual should not, however, be insulated from the results of that decision.
}:-)4
I don't think that should be in the law. Just give insurance companies the authority to write a policy based on that rule.
In other words, let the insurance company write the policy any way it wants, without government interference.
For example, the insurance company could offer higher-priced insurance for people who don't want to wear helmets.
BTW, one of the arguments against helmet laws is that the helmets make riding more dangerous, thus leading to accidents. Whereas the helmet only helps you if you HAVE an accident.
Don't go there or insurance companies will start wanting to deny claims becuse you weren't wearing a seat belt or because you didn't eat right or you weren't wearing safety glasses, etc.
Insurance and federal money.